Informed consent is defined as “permission granted in the knowledge of the possible consequences” and is the backbone to honorable physician patient interactions. Unfortunately, throughout history there have been many cases where physicians have used a patient’s lower socioeconomic status to manipulate the obtaining of informed consent. The AMA Code of Medical Ethics predates back to 1847, yet cases continue to arise directly breaking their key principles. These principles include autonomy, justice, beneficence, non-maleficence; and if followed ensure patients receive a high quality of care. Informed consent prior to any participation in experiments or procedures is essential for physicians to act within these guidelines. Autonomy allows patients to have free will and make decisions without coercion. Justice keeps all individuals in mind so resources are distributed fairly and all individuals are treated the same. Beneficence and Non-maleficence focus on the intent of the procedure to do only good and no harm. Even with these principles established there are discrepancies in on how they unfold in a clinical setting. The American Medical Association states physicians should assess their patient’s understanding of their medical condition, the recommended treatments, and document the physician-patient interaction. The Tuskegee, Abdullah vs Pfizer, and The Skid Row Cancer Studies are a few cases where these principles were ignored so physician and big pharmaceutical
The two ethical dilemmas that stick out to me in the case are patient autonomy, and distributive justice. Patient autonomy is the patient’s right to make decisions about their care, including whether to accept or decline treatment (Taylor, 2014). Because the patient did not fully understand the information relayed in the consent form or the procedure, her patient autonomy may have been violated. This also may mean the consent form may not be valid. A signed consent form from a patient affords the hospital with an assumed duty to care for that patient (as cited Taylor, 2014). And the patient has given the medical professional permission to provide treatment. Therefore, it is important that the patient fully understands and can communicate that understanding when consenting to
Physician Assistant’s who may also go by the name PA, practice medicine under the supervision of a physician or a surgeon. PA’s must be formally trained and can examine patients, review medical histories, diagnose illnesses and injuries, order and interpret diagnostic tests such as x-rays and blood tests, prescribe medication, document patient progress, and treat a range of ailments (Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, 2014). The physician assistants code of ethics is divided into four categories; Patient independence, goodwill, fair treatment and nonmaleficence (Anderson, J. (2015)). The code of ethics promotes dignity, integrity, honesty and accountability.
Informed consent is the basis for all legal and moral aspects of a patient’s autonomy. Implied consent is when you and your physician interact in which the consent is assumed, such as in a physical exam by your doctor. Written consent is a more extensive form in which it mostly applies when there is testing or experiments involved over a period of time. The long process is making sure the patient properly understands the risk and benefits that could possible happen during and after the treatment. As a physician, he must respect the patient’s autonomy. For a patient to be an autonomous agent, he must have legitimate moral values. The patient has all the rights to his medical health and conditions that arise. When considering informed
The American Medical Association (AMA) published a Code of Ethics for Physicians that includes a list of certain principles physicians should follow in order to be good physicians, practicing in an ethical fashion. This list, which was first adopted in June of 1957 and revised as recently as June of 2001, demonstrates some principles that are not universally accepted to be critical to the ethical practice of a physician. In particular, all physicians do not completely believe the claim that “A physician shall support access to medical care for all people” (Principles of Medical Ethics). Theorist, H. Tristam Engelhardt believes that the lack of access to care for some may be unfortunate, but it is not unfair and that this access does not need to be mandated, nor does believing it should be make you an ethical physician. In fact, Engelhardt supremely believes that by providing access of care to all, you will hurt certain patients that already have access to care, negating your function as a physician practicing beneficence. Engelhardt would retract this statement from the Principles of Ethics. However, this belief of and drive to implement access of care to all is critical to one’s job as a physician and it goes against core values of physicians to claim otherwise. Theorists such as Tom Beauchamp and Norman Daniels would agree that the universal access to health care is a critical component of the values physicians hold.
Health professionals are responsible for providing services that improve the health and well-being of the community.
A nurse is given an opportunity to help patients, either if its by helping them through a very serious sickness or just helping a patient get to the bathroom on time, or a time when happiness is overfilling the room and a child is being born. Registered nurses provide a wide variety of patient care services (Mitchell, p.12). A Nurse must always know where to begin and where to stop, as any other career in the health field there is always something that cannot be done by everyone but only the certified person, a nurse must always remain inside her scope of practice to prevent any misunderstandings. A nurse must also follow a code of ethics , the code of ethics of the American Association of Medical Assistants states that a nurse should at all times render service with full respect and dignity of humanity, respect confidential information obtained by a patients file, uphold the honor and high principles the profession and accept its discipline, and last but not least always want to improve her services to better serve the health and well being of the community. (Mitchell, p.65).
Another issue with the implementation of Informed consent arises when the patient waives the right to Informed consent and leaves the right to make the decision on the physician. Though legally correct, this can cause psychological stress for the physician especially when the decision is about a life threatening medical condition. Moreover, this also makes the patient vulnerable to abuse. (Manthous, DeGirolamo, 2003)
De Bord, J. (2014). ETHICS IN MEDICINE University of Washington School of Medicine. Retrieved from https://depts.washington.edu/bioethx/topics/consent.html
A physician who does not provide this to his/her patient may be liable for battery or negligence in the light of the doctrine of informed consent (Thorton 2000). As patients are entitled to this information, physicians possess a duty to disclose regarding risks and hazards, while performing the procedure or treatment as agreed with the patient. If the doctrine of informed consent did not exist, physicians would be able to perform medical treatments, procedures, without a patient’s consent or full knowledge of the perils of healthcare. In addition, healthcare demands trust which is necessary between patients and physicians in order to deliver beneficial health outcomes. If the doctrine of informed consent is not performed between the patient and physician, then trust diminishes resulting in poor health outcomes (Roach 2014). An example of deliberate harm due to uninformed consent exist in the research conducted in the Tuskegee experiment, where treatment was withheld and subjects were not informed of their illness or available treatments (CDC 2013) resulting in poor health and
Informed Consent allows a doctor to render treatment to a patient. By signing the document states that the patient understands the circumstances and what is required. This paper is to analyze the consent and non-consent, and ethical issues that can become a problem.
Write a short summary of a professional code of ethics, preferably one germane to your major or field (e.g., Code of Ethics of the National Society of Engineers; Code of Ethics of the American Medical Association; Code of Ethics for the Association of American Educators)
I enjoyed reading your post. The ASCA and AMHCA has some similarities. In the AMHCA Code of Ethics (2015), that counselors should look at his or her own beliefs and values and understand that their views can impact the client. AMHCA also has their own peer review journal that provides information about research, and theories that relates to mental health counseling. I agree that advocacy is important because it brings awareness and it also important because you have someone that will speak up for the people that do not have a voice for example, children may not voice how they are feeling or believe that if they do voice their feelings, someone will not believe
Informed consent is an integral part of the medical process, but what is it? How can the principles of Informed Consent conflict with each other or with patient care? It is important to examine Informed Consent very carefully and explore how the principles of Beneficence and Patient Autonomy work with each other for the best interests of the patients, even if the patient is refusing some treatment that is important in the standard of care. However, it may be possible that Informed consent and these elements work against one another, and conflict with the best interests of the patient.
If you were to compare the AMA code of medical ethics to the APHA code of public health ethics, there most definitely would be conflicts. As mentioned, medical ethics looks at the individual and public health ethics deals with the population. One example of this conflict could be in AIDS testing. The individual's right to privacy and confidentiality must be maintained, while the need for public health, such as notifying their partners to prevent further spreading of the disease (Williams & Torrens, 2008).
The four principles of medical ethics include nonmaleficence, beneficence, autonomy, and justice. These principles were created by Beauchamp and James Childress because they felt these four were the building blocks of people’s morality. Nonmaleficence is to do no harm to others. Beneficence is to care or help others. Autonomy is to respect another’s wishes. These four principles relate to issues surrounding physician-assisted death in many ways. To begin, there are seven individual forms of PAD. They are the following; voluntary passive euthanasia, nonvoluntary passive euthanasia, involuntary passive euthanasia, voluntary active euthanasia, nonvoluntary active euthanasia, involuntary active euthanasia, and physician-assisted suicide. Passive euthanasia is an act in which the health care physician withholds treatment or surgery and the result is the patient’s death. An example of passive euthanasia is a cancer patient refusing treatment and the physician agrees with their decision, therefore the patient dies from the lack of intervention to treat their illness. Active euthanasia is an act in which the health care physician has a direct contact with the patient’s death due to the physician’s act of doing something to the patient in order for them to die. An example of active euthanasia is an injection of potassium chloride. Voluntary is when the patient is requesting assistance to die. Nonvoluntary is when the patient is not requesting assistance and their wishes are unknown